MAINTAG - Multi-Agent-based Predictive Maintenance Dataset Tagging System

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Published Oct 26, 2025
Oguz Bektash Dorian JOUBAUD Chetan. S. Kulkarni Sylvain KUBLER

Abstract

With the ongoing digitization of global activities, the number of predictive maintenance datasets has been steadily growing. These datasets are often manually classified – in literature review papers – to assess their relevance for predictive maintenance applications. However, this manual approach is increasingly unsustainable, as it is time-intensive, prone to errors, and the accelerating pace at which new datasets emerge in both scientific and industrial contexts. To overcome these challenges, there is a growing need for automated solutions to curate, analyze, and categorize (tag) datasets in the literature. To this end, we propose and evaluate MAINTAG (Multi-Agent-based Predictive Maintenance Dataset Tagging System), a novel multi-agent system designed to automate the classification of predictive maintenance datasets. MAINTAG is compatible with any criteria-based taxonomy and is assessed by benchmarking its tagging accuracy against recent state-of-the-art literature. This evaluation highlights MAINTAG’s ability to replicate expert-level dataset tagging.

MAINTAG resolves three critical challenges in predictive maintenance dataset tagging. The first one arises from the dramatic increase in the number of datasets. The recent growth in predictive maintenance applications has resulted in higher data volume. This makes manual tagging methods impractical and unscalable. Researchers, therefore, will struggle to manually process this flood of new data. The second challenge is related to the complexity of data classification. Each dataset consist of different data types, sources, and structures. These create additional classification difficulties. The third challenge is keeping data tagging consistent across different domains. Predictive maintenance datasets come from multiple industries, and each has its own set of standards and/or classification criteria. MAINTAG proposes a specialized multi-agent framework in response to these challenges. The framework divides the complex classification tasks into simpler and more manageable parts. The system uses specialized agents working in parallel to handle different classification tasks. These agents work together to analyze different aspects of the datasets. This system marks a major leap in autonomous data tagging. It also sets the foundation for a more scalable approach for handling surge in the predictive maintenance datasets.

How to Cite

Bektash, O., JOUBAUD, D., Kulkarni, C. S., & KUBLER, S. (2025). MAINTAG - Multi-Agent-based Predictive Maintenance Dataset Tagging System. Annual Conference of the PHM Society, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.36001/phmconf.2025.v17i1.4369
Abstract 2 | PDF Downloads 0

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

Predictive Maintenance, Dataset Tagging, Multi-Agent Systems, Data Classification

References
Bohlin, M., Doganay, K., Kreuger, P., Steinert, R., & Warja, M. (2010). Searching for gas turbine maintenance schedules. AI Magazine, 31(1), 21Ð36.
Brotherton, T., Jahns, G., Jacobs, J., & Wroblewski, D. (2000). Prognosis of faults in gas turbine engines. In 2000 ieee aerospace conference. proceedings (cat. no. 00th8484) (Vol. 6, pp. 163Ð171).
Byington, C. S., Watson, M. J., & Bharadwaj, S. P. (2008). Automated health management for gas turbine engine accessory system components. In 2008 ieee aerospace conference (pp. 1Ð12).
Dumschott, K., D¬orpholz, H., Laporte, M.-A., Brilhaus, D., Schrader, A., Usadel, B., . . . Kranz, A. (2023). Ontologies for increasing the fairness of plant research data. Frontiers in Plant Science, 14, 1279694.
Eklund, N., & Bechhoefer, E. (2009). PHM09 Challenge Data Set. https://www.phmsociety.org/competition/phm/09.
Eklund, N., & Kessler, S. (2011). Phm society 2011 anemometer dataset. https://phmsociety.org/phm competition/2011-phm-society-conference-data-challenge/.
Eklund, N., & Kessler, S. (2013). Phm society 2013 maintenance log dataset. https://phmsociety.org/conference/annual-conference-of-the-phm-society/annual-conference-of-the-prognostics-and-health-management-society-2013/phm-data-challenge/.
Eklund, N., Li, X., Bechhoefer, E., & Menon, P. (2010). 2010 phm society conference data challenge. https://phmsociety.org/phm competition/2010-phm-society-conference-data-challenge/.
Eklund, N. H. (2006). Using synthetic data to train an accurate real-world fault detection system. In The proceedings of the multiconference onÓ computational engineering in systems applicationsÓ (Vol. 1, pp. 483Ð488).
Garvey, D., & Wigny, R. (2014). Phm society 2014 asset risk dataset. https://phmsociety.org/conference/annual-conference-of-the-phm-society/annual-conference-of-the-prognostics-and-health-management-society-2014/phm-data-challenge-2/.
Goncüalves, R. S., Kamdar, M. R., & Musen, M. A. (2019). Aligning biomedical metadata with ontologies using clustering and embeddings. In European semantic web conference (pp. 146Ð161).
Heng, A., Zhang, S., Tan, A. C., & Mathew, J. (2009). Rotating machinery prognostics: State of the art, challenges and opportunities. Mechanical systems and signal processing, 23(3), 724Ð739.
Heng, A. S. Y. (2009). Intelligent prognostics of machinery health utilising suspended condition monitoring data (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Queensland University of Technology.
Huang, B., Di, Y., Jin, C., & Lee, J. (2017). Review of data-driven prognostics and health management techniques:lessions learned from phm data challenge competitions. Machine Failure Prevention Technology, 2017, 1Ð17.
Jardine, A. K., Lin, D., & Banjevic, D. (2006). A review on machinery diagnostics and prognostics implementing condition-based maintenance. Mechanical systems and signal processing, 20(7), 1483Ð1510.
Jia, X., Huang, B., Feng, J., Cai, H., & Lee, J. (2018). A review of phm data competitions from 2008 to 2017: Methodologies and analytics. In Annual conference of the prognostics and health management society.
Kans, M., & Ingwald, A. (2008). Common database for cost-effective improvement of maintenance performance. International journal of production economics, 113(2), 734Ð747.
Lutz, M.-A., Sch¬afermeier, B., Sexton, R., Sharp, M., Dima, A., Faulstich, S., & Aluri, J. M. (2023). Kpi extraction from maintenance work ordersÑa comparison of expert labeling, text classification and ai-assisted tagging for computing failure rates of wind turbines. Energies, 16(24), 7937.
Mishra, S., Glaws, A., Cutler, D., Frank, S., Azam, M., Mohammadi, F., & Venne, J.-S. (2020). Unified architecture for data-driven metadata tagging of building automation systems. Automation in Construction, 120, 103411.
Nectoux, P., Gouriveau, R., Medjaher, K., Ramasso, E., Chebel-Morello, B., Zerhouni, N., & Varnier, C. (2012). Pronostia: An experimental platform for bearings accelerated degradation tests. In Ieee international conference on prognostics and health management, phmÕ12. (pp. 1Ð8).
Nguyen, D. C., Ding, M., Pathirana, P. N., Seneviratne, A., Li, J., Niyato, D., . . . Poor, H. V. (2021). 6g internet of things: A comprehensive survey. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 9(1), 359Ð383.
Pimenov, D. Y., Bustillo, A., Wojciechowski, S., Sharma, V. S., Gupta, M. K., & Kuntoùglu, M. (2023). Artificial intelligence systems for tool condition monitoring in machining: Analysis and critical review. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 34(5), 2079Ð2121.
Propes, N., Girstmair, B., & Rosca, J. (2017). Phm society 2017 bogie dataset. https://phmsociety.org/conference/annual-conference-of-the-phm-society/annual-conference-of-the-prognostics-and-health-management-society-2017/phm-data-challenge-5/.
Propes, N., & Rosca, J. (2016). Phm society 2016 cmp dataset. https://phmsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/PHM16DataChallengeCFP.pdf.
Ramasso, E., & Saxena, A. (2014). Performance benchmarking and analysis of prognostic methods for cmapss datasets.International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management, 5(2), 1Ð15.
Rosca, J., Williard, N., Eklund, N., & Song, Z. (2015). Phm society 2015 power plant dataset. https://www.phmsociety.org/events/conference/phm/15/data-challenge.
Sarker, S., Arefin, M. S., Kowsher, M., Bhuiyan, T., Dhar, P. K., & Kwon, O.-J. (2022). A comprehensive review on big data for industries: challenges and opportunities. IEEE Access, 11, 744Ð769.
Saxena, A., & Goebel, K. (2008). PHM08 Challenge Data Set. https://www.nasa.gov/content/prognostics-center-of-excellence-data-set-repository. (NASA Prognostics Data Repository, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA)
Simoes, J. M., Gomes, C. F., & Yasin, M. M. (2011). A literature review of maintenance performance measurement: A conceptual framework and directions for future research. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 17(2),
116Ð137.
Su, H., & Lee, J. (2023). Machine learning approaches for diagnostics and prognostics of industrial systems using open source data from phm data challenges: a review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.16810.
Tsui, K. L., Zhao, Y., & Wang, D. (2019). Big data opportunities: System health monitoring and management. IEEE Access, 7, 68853Ð68867.
Uusipaavalniemi, S., & Juga, J. (2008). Information integration in maintenance services. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 58(1), 92Ð110.
Zhao, Z., Wu, J., Li, T., Sun, C., Yan, R., & Chen, X. (2021). Challenges and opportunities of ai-enabled monitoring, diagnosis & prognosis: A review. Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 34(1), 56.
Section
Technical Research Papers